On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> All WS usage requires a particular (application specific) implementation
> on the server, does it not? Notwithstanding that fact, such usage will fall
> into certain messaging patterns. I happened to give an example of two
> possible message patterns and showed how the proposal under discussion
> could address those patterns. It is not necessary to marry my proposal to a
> specific sub-protocol on WS in order to provide useful functionality that
> can be exploited by applications that use those functions.
>
If you wish to introduce a particular browser supported semantic for which
a specific implementation on the server is required, then people should be
able to consult a standard that tells them how they have to provide this
implementation. Therefore it is quite necessary to marry your desire to
extend remote blobs to WS to a protocol, otherwise you'll have a browser
implemented protocol that nobody knows how to implement.